Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • please dont use hosting sites. copied and attached as per our upload guide. dx  
    • Another update - just had another round of Text messages, Emails and letters. Physical  letters still going to the old address (forwarded by royal mail). All messages were exactly the same as the previous round with threats of CCj's, Attachment of Earnings, Warrant of Execution, Bankruptcy and Charging Order. Seems to be a 2 week pattern of 1 week letter, following week email - texts seem to be a bit more randon, but always over 10 days between each one.  Not sure if IDR are working diligently behind the scenes to recover monies from me,  or are just spamming me in the hope that i stick my head above the parapet
    • Here  (edited for personal information).    Claimform.pdf filed defence.pdf
    • 1. the claim is for sum of 1650£ due by the defendant under an agreement regulated by the consumer credit act 1974 for capital one account with an account reference of xxxx 2. the dependent failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a default notice was served under s87(1) of the consumer credit act 1973 which has not been complied with 3. the debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 18-03-21 notice of which has been given to defendant  4. the claim incudes statutory interest under s69 of the county court act 184 at a rate of 8%per annum from the date of assignment to the date of issue of these proceedings in the sum of 132£ the claimant claims the sum of 1782£ defence. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim vague and are generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 1. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1PAPDC. 2. The Claimant claims £xxxxxx is owed under a regulated consumer credit account under reference xxxxxxxxx. I do not recall the precise details or agreement and have sought verification from the claimant and the claimants solicitor by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request who are yet to fully comply. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unable to recall the precise details of the alleged agreement or any default notice served in breach of any defaulted payments. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. The Defendant contends that no notice of assignment pursuant to s.136 of the Law of Property Act & s.82 A of the CCA1974 has ever been served by the Claimant as alleged or at all. 5. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant, the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of assignment/balance/breach requested by CPR 31. 14, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to: (a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and (b) show and evidence any cause of action and service of a Default Notice  pursuant to sec87(1) of the CCA1974; and (c) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and (d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 6. After receiving this claim I requested by way of a CPR 31.14 request and a section 78 request for copies of any documents referred to within the Claimants' particulars to establish what the claim is for.  7. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 8. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. 9. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief Should the amount be the figure in the particulars or the final figure with the added fees Should the amount be the figure in the particular or the final amount with fees added
    • post it up here first for checking please dx  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Carphone Warehouse and T-Mobile Systems Down So I Suffer..


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5165 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I dont know if everyone is aware but Carphone warehouse has had its systems down for past few days as regards to T-Mobile. Everytime they do a contract the credit checks can give false passes and fails. Problem started with just in store they did like four credit checks (kept running them through different operators or something just to confirm details like chip and pin:S) Then finally I got hold of my brand new phone and a 24 month contract..

 

Waited 24 hours for sim to activate and it dosnt so I ring T-Mobile on 150 off the mobile (can still make calls) And after explaing situation the women said she has to go through the sign up again and also ran a credit check on me again! After that she said max within a hour probably in half a hour my phone would be up and running. Waited two hours and still did not work. Called again this time told just to wait untill evening and it would be fully working. Waited untill this morning then called again and they explained how it could take up to five days from when the phone was purchased.

 

Also told me how they have to do all credit checks AGAIN!!!! Which is obviously effecting my credit score which isnt too good as it is. And if it fails I would have to take phone back into the store and return it!

 

What rights have I got in regards to this? Since I did the contract already if I fail credit check now will they have any right to cancel my contract even though I would not be allowed to cancel it myself normally?

I was told on various occasions I have passed the credit check. This is a joke if I have to take phone back especially as it was not my fault that their systems are down...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello and Welcome,

 

I'll move this thread to a more appropriate Forum.

 

Regards.

 

Scott.

Any advice I give is honest and in good faith.:)

If in doubt, you should seek the opinion of a Qualified Professional.

If you can, please donate to this site.

Help keep it up and active, helping people like you.

If you no longer require help, please do what you can to help others

RIP: Rooster-UK - MARTIN3030 - cerberusalert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Sottyc,

 

There should only be one credit check done on you, the systems(and operators) should recognise that there is one that has been done.

 

As when a check is run it gives an Agreement Number (this should be a 9 digit number on your contract) and then they will connect everything for you, if there is no agreement number then there has been no check done.

 

The system makes an agreement number whether it be a pass or fail, and if someone tries to run multiple checks in a short period of time, it is flagged by T-Mobile Credit referals.

 

So what to do is call up customer services again and give them that agreement number or pop into a T-Mobile store.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I have various numbers on my contract dont know whats what. Problem is they say carphone warehouse systems just passed everyone. Hence why they have to run it again.

 

But why should they be allowed to cancel contract if my credit check dosnt pass this time and take phone back when I would never be allowed to cancel contract

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because your contract is subject to acceptance. There is no contract until you are set up on their system. So they aren't cancelling it.

 

Getting a contract is subject to acceptance by the network, which include a credit check.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But thats just the thing...In store they do a credit check..They check that the network approves..

 

Friend of mine was rejected from all networks when trying to get a contract out.

 

Which is why im so confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you pop into a CPW store, they run a credit check (through T-Mobile's or the chosen network's system) and then that transmits a response to their system in order to process the sale.

 

So there is only one credit check done. If it hasn't been connected and CPWs systems where down a credit check most likely HASN'T been performed. Because only one check is done.

 

Your Agreement number is the one that is 9 digits long, it may say reference, contract number or something along those lines. e.g. 514321059.

 

Supply that to T-Mobile's 'Ready Team' and they will tell you if a credit check has been performed and whether or not its a yay or nay. If its a yes then they can connect everything for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just called them and they said get a PIE number or something from car phone warehouse. Luckily just before i hanged up I noticed I have a credit check number on the contract said Credit Check:xxx (the numbers in place of x's) Gave him that and said ring back around ten to six lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

The CW check is only an authentication, not a credit check. This weeds out the stolen cards and box breakers. but has nothing to do with the network accepting the customer.

 

However, the situation is fatally flawed. You've bought the phone and whilst your connection is subject to acceptance, should they decide not to accept you, you already have the goods. Get it unlocked or put in a pre-pay SIM and carry on as before.

 

Your contract is only for the SIM card (as we often point out), if the phone goes faulty, the netowrk is not liable for it - so, if you are supplied the handset and LATER fail a check, they have decided not you have you as a customer, fair enough - but as you have already recieved the inducement - that's tough luck on them if they don't get the phone back, and I certainly would not be minded to return it.

Edited by buzby
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...